Trans Teacher

Well it's about time we did away with toxic masculinity... without it we would never have needed feminism in the first place

I view men being more open to the idea of wearing pink, flowers and now skirts as progress towards equality we have always fought for

Agreed. The idea that skirts are associated with 'gender' is an entirely social creation. Why would Glorianny's hypothetical boy want to wear one? If he was too hot and didn't like shorts, that would be a valid reason, but the fact that thinking about it might make him feel that he was 'in the wrong gender' is 100% because of the messaging from the trans lobby.

I would really like to know what 'being in the wrong gender' means. Feeling you are the wrong sex is one thing. I don't believe that you can change that, but I can understand that someone might think he should have been a woman but is actually a man, or vice versa.

'Being in the wrong gender' just doesn't make sense though. Gender is not fixed. Men wearing a skirt is, as we have seen on this thread, normal in some parts of the world, and as 'occasion' wear in Scotland. Pink used to be considered a boys' colour. Pastimes like knitting were (maybe still are) considered male skills in some places. Gender changes over time, too. 50 years ago it was very unusual for women to have tattoos, or drink pints, but it's not now. So yes, 'gender' expectations exist, but they are not something that you 'feel' - and if you do 'feel like' knitting, wearing pink, or getting a tattoo, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. You don't have to 'transition', and there is no 'wrong gender'. If what you do is against the grain, you might stand out, but it doesn't mean you need to bind your breasts or take hormones.

Also, many young people want to stand out - it's part of growing up. So I'll ask again - what does 'being in the wrong gender' mean, and why would a teacher wearing a skirt be helpful to a boy who feels that he is 'in the wrong gender'?

Worldwide women have been wearing trousers in some form or other for centuries, as men have also worn similar to what we now call skirts / dresses. Climate and culture have presumably dictated particular fashions and styles as well as practical considerations.

So in modern times as trousers for women are now old-hat, then skirts for men should be the same. But they are not - although maybe in the esoteric world of fashion and entertainment it's a different story. And, that in itself is an interesting circumstance. Why, generally speaking, do men, cis-men, not take to skirts and dresses in the same way that women have to trousers? Why isn't the City teeming with men in skirts and dresses as it is with women in trousers?

I think it's because skirts and dresses are viewed in the context of the historical inferior status of women, at least subconsciously, and therefore the typical male is not attracted to that type of clothing, whereas for women, trousers allow a freedom, both in practical terms and psychological... wearing them is - empowering.

I think if men really wanted to wear skirts - they would have become a staple of their wardrobes by now. But they are not - so in this context I question Mr Teacher wearing his. When those male students wore skirts to school - they were making a point. And I think the teacher is - we just don't know what it is - but I doubt it's a fashion statement.

Mollygo the fact that you don't understand that in this instance equality means offering the same dress options to men as well as women is your problem. I don't see why I need to keep explaining it.
Except in your support for men, this has nothing to do with equality.
It’s to do with dressing in a manner that makes what you look like more important than what you’re there to do.
Obviously you would support the male as the underdog.

Where you feel women (AHF) don’t treat others as equals, and can you explain who these others are?

If you understand the point being made about context, why do you keep returning to trouser-wearing in the 70s? The context was very different then, so it was a red herring at best, and diverted the conversation from the point.

I see what you’re saying about garments being unimportant and have agreed several times on the thread. It is 100% the context that matters in this case.

The boy you mention who wonders if fancying wearing a skirt means he is ‘in the wrong gender’? What does being ‘in the wrong gender’ mean, and why would he think that skirt wearing is relevant to that, if not for the continual messages about ’gender’ that children hear these days?

The crux of my argument is that it ‘gender’ is already complicated enough- it is a created concept that was largely irrelevant until Stonewall latched onto it, and has no place being pushed in schools. A man wearing a skirt even ten years ago would not have been in that context and the story would have been different. Today it does matter.

Women wearing trousers had nothing to do with transgender issues, and pretending otherwise is diversionary and comes across as disingenuous.

Mollygo

Iam64

Doodle/Dickens/others - thanks for continuing to try and discuss the issues raised in the Happy gardener’s OP.
I stand by my earlier post - a teacher is there to teach, not to make deliberate statements about their politics or emotional needs. Psychologists, social workers and other working directly with children and families know it isn’t about them, it’s about the needs of the client/service user or pupil.
The idea of comparing women at work in trousers with men wearing a skirt is laughable,

Glorianny
A teacher makes a statement every time they enter a school and a classroom. The idea that how someone dresses never impacts on their teaching is ridiculous, of course it does.
Exactly. I’m glad you agree.

The difference is whether or not the statement you make is to draw attention to something that’s nothing to do with your teaching.
Obviously you would support the male as the underdog.
I see you’re still unable to point out where you feel women (AHF) don’t treat others as equals, and explain who these others are.
I guessed you would opt for the I’m not answering you technique. QED.

Mollygo the fact that you don't understand that in this instance equality means offering the same dress options to men as well as women is your problem. I don't see why I need to keep explaining it. But as you seem to require that here it is.
A woman can wear a skirt or trousers to school just as she chooses, a man should be able to do the same. It's called equality. It obviously doesn't exist in all areas of life where people are discriminated against for all sort of reasons. But the subject under discussion is a man wearing a skirt and in the interests of equality he should be permitted to do so.
If you are a woman (or a man, or indeed any person) and you are advocating one dress rule for a man and a different one for a woman you are advocating inequality.

Iam64

Doodle/Dickens/others - thanks for continuing to try and discuss the issues raised in the Happy gardener’s OP.
I stand by my earlier post - a teacher is there to teach, not to make deliberate statements about their politics or emotional needs. Psychologists, social workers and other working directly with children and families know it isn’t about them, it’s about the needs of the client/service user or pupil.
The idea of comparing women at work in trousers with men wearing a skirt is laughable,

Glorianny
A teacher makes a statement every time they enter a school and a classroom. The idea that how someone dresses never impacts on their teaching is ridiculous, of course it does.
Exactly. I’m glad you agree.

The difference is whether or not the statement you make is to draw attention to something that’s nothing to do with your teaching.
Obviously you would support the male as the underdog.
I see you’re still unable to point out where you feel women (AHF) don’t treat others as equals, and explain who these others are.
I guessed you would opt for the I’m not answering you technique. QED.

No Dickens I completely understand your viewpoint.
But I think a man teacher identifying as a man and wearing a skirt is sending a very positive message to those boys who may be wondering if wanting something a bit different from the trousers they are expected to wear means they are the wrong gender. Its saying men can be different and yet remain men.How is that buying into anything trans? or supporting anything trans? It is saying gender norms are not set in stone and looking different to others is OK. Which I actually think is a great message to give to children.
The fact that some people see trans issues behind everything is their problem, not the teacher's and not the children's
And by some people I mean the group of people on or off GN who have such a belief.
As for the Head teacher. I didn't like it when HTs dictated what their staff wore based on their personal preferences and I still wouldn't like it. Nothing to do with them if a staff member wears a skirt or trousers whatever the staff member's gender.

Glorianny

Is anyone really saying that teachers who dress in a "certain way" cannot be allowed to teach - which is, I think, what you are suggesting is being said?

I believe what Doodledog, Iam64 and me are basically putting forward is that a male teacher - identifying as a male - has chosen to wear a skirt at a time when sex-gender-issues are at a rather febrile level and there is still much debate about all of it and its effect on the mental health of children.

I understand the trans community think that the problems faced by young children are tied up with their gender-identity and naturally want to see this recognised in the mainstream.

But there's a body of people who don't agree, or certainly don't agree that it's as prolific as it's projected to be, and think an agenda is being pushed on these kids - kids who are very amenable to being influenced - by lots of things, not just trans issues.

In this light - we are questioning the teacher's motives more than his right to wear a skirt.

Of course, you won't see it, because you are 100% on message with the trans community - but, we are questioning why so many children now appear to be suffering a gender-identity crisis. I'm sure there's a very small minority who actually do have such problems, but it now seems like every other child is questioning his/her identity, and when this leads to them being given puberty-blockers, I think we have every right to question the validity of the consensus of opinion of the trans community. It's already established that young brains do not function in the same way as adults - they do not have the same critical-thinking skills or ability to reason as an adult until they are well into their teens, so we have to question the ideology that's being pushed on to them.

This is the environment in which the teacher has chosen to make a stand - so it's not really about the skirt itself, it's about him making a point in a classroom with children who are not really at the right age to deal rationally with whatever point he's making.

If the Head Teacher had announced to the school in assembly - look kids, in this ridiculously hot weather, our male teachers are going to be wearing skirts if they feel like it because they are far more comfortable in this intense heat, and you boys can do the same if you want to... that would be an entirely different dynamic, and might establish skirt-wearing for men / boys in the future.

But this is one man (taking the OP at face value) who is more than likely pushing his own agenda. Which means our argument is not about teachers dressing in a "certain way" being unfit to teach, at all.

Iam64

Doodle/Dickens/others - thanks for continuing to try and discuss the issues raised in the Happy gardener’s OP.
I stand by my earlier post - a teacher is there to teach, not to make deliberate statements about their politics or emotional needs. Psychologists, social workers and other working directly with children and families know it isn’t about them, it’s about the needs of the client/service user or pupil.
The idea of comparing women at work in trousers with men wearing a skirt is laughable,

Just because it's laughable now doesn't mean it has always been..
A teacher makes a statement every time they enter a school and a classroom. The idea that how someone dresses never impacts on their teaching is ridiculous, of course it does, but the concept that it is OK for one body of people to say people who dress a certain way cannot teach is completely untenable. If children are to be protected from particular forms of dress where does it stop?
Tattoos and piercings are controversial. I have a real phobia of piercings but I wouldn't consider that justified stopping anyone with piercings from teaching.
Teachers are allowed personal statements and personal preferences. It's something which enriches their work.
I didn't push my personal belief about peace onto the children I taught, but at an assembly, the week after I did the march against the Iraq war, the deputy head had the children sing "Last night I had the strangest dream" an anti-war song.
I don't think it harmed them

Doodle/Dickens/others - thanks for continuing to try and discuss the issues raised in the Happy gardener’s OP.
I stand by my earlier post - a teacher is there to teach, not to make deliberate statements about their politics or emotional needs. Psychologists, social workers and other working directly with children and families know it isn’t about them, it’s about the needs of the client/service user or pupil.
The idea of comparing women at work in trousers with men wearing a skirt is laughable,

I will give an example

Many times now I have explained to you that when I say some people I mean an amount of people

Granted others might use it differently but that's not how I read it either... That's not how my non neurotypical mind works. I entirely mean, "some".. not the majority and not all

Would you think/say the same thing if the man wore a kilt?
Or if women wore trousers?
It's not about sexuality, in my opinion, more about personal choices!
And, he may be feeling cooler and fresher wearing a skirt than being enclosed in trousers!!

Actually you do doodledog you aren't the worst offender but you do.

I have tried to explain my meaning to you on many occasions and it has not been accepted.

It's part of the reason I stay away from trans discussions even though I would like to be able to participate.

Perhaps the emotions around the topic are very strong and you don't realise... I have had to work on myself in that regard too because I hate to see a vulnerable demographic misrepresented or laughed at

Mollygo

*If women want to be treated as equals then they should also treat others as equals.*
That’s your best yet Glorianny.
Can you explain exactly what that means in a situation where a TW is in a female safe space?
Or when women (AHF) are being attacked, removed from their jobs because they demand female safe spaces free from males?
Or when makes insist on attending lesbian gatherings to the extent that lesbians have difficulty finding venues?
How does your speech above work in those circumstances?
In those circumstances, who do you see as the underdog?
How do you demonstrate your support?

I’m still waiting for Glorianny to explain her statement
* If women want to be treated as equals then they should also treat others as equals.*

Glorianny objected to the fact that I’d used trans as an example of where women were the underdog, presumably in order to avoid acknowledging that in those circumstances, it is women (AHF) who are the underdogs. I hoped to hear that she would be supporting them.
So who are these others that she feels women (AHF) do not treat as equals.

VS, I do not gaslight, or use passive aggression such as 'Some People'. If I am directing a comment to someone I say so, and often point it out if I mean a generic 'you', so that it is clear that I am not addressing anyone in particular. I have not misrepresented anything. Glorianny did bang on about how she wore trousers against the odds, and that if not for women (which by definition included her) doing so, they would not be mainstream nowadays. I did not quote directly, but that is, IMO, a fair summary of her argument.

You may not like me or my posts, which is fine, but I say what I think and do not twist words, misrepresent or gaslight. At times I lose patience, but at least I try to be polite. I think it is undeniable that the thread was diverted for pages by talk of trousers, which is a tenuous link at best to the OP.

Anyway, I have made my point several times already, and this is starting to get too personal, so I shall refrain from further comment unless there is something sensible to discuss.

This thread has gone a long way for an untruth

It couldn't continue without the gaslighting to distract from its fundamental wrongness

No comment.

If you want a true example of gaslighting . It's here
^*in favour of virtue signalling about how you were brave enough to wear trousers and changed things for everyone*
It isn't something I have ever claimed.

It's another example of Doodledog deliberately misconstruing and misrepresenting my posts. Something she has done consistently throughout this thread.
I've tried to correct her misrepresentations I posted a clear time line to correct her but she continues to do it. That's gaslighting for you

Typically, gaslighters are seeking to gain power and control over the other person, by distorting reality and forcing them to question their own judgment and intuition

TheHappyGardener

I 100% agree with your posts maddyone and Doodledog - my thoughts exactly!

Me too!

Doodledog

*Doodledog I am not going to list the people (I might miss one out)so just stop pushing for it. You know if it applies to you. If the cap fits wear it!*

Classic gaslighting.

Absolutely.

Enid101

I don’t think the Headteacher could prevent this teacher from wearing a skirt. My view is, with any item of clothing a member of staff chooses to wear, you shouldn’t be able to see up it, down it or through it.

I would hope there's a code of conduct and a dress code. I'd presume skimpy skirts aren't part of it. If he's being allowed to wear clothing that female staff aren't allowed then it needs reporting to the governors or other authority.

What is the reverse of not being able to do their job?

This point-scoring is also childish.

Doodledog

*Sorry what a teacher wears has nothing to do with their professional ability. I've seen punk teachers, teachers with dreadlocks and teachers in suits. Their dress was no indication of how well they did the job, quite the reverse.*
Who said it did? And the idea that punks and people with dreadlocks teach better than those in twinsets and sensible shoes is ludicrous and reductive. Some will be better teachers and others will be worse. 'Alternative' automatically = "better" sounds like something a fifth former would say.

Well it was you who used "better" Doodledog

Sorry what a teacher wears has nothing to do with their professional ability. I've seen punk teachers, teachers with dreadlocks and teachers in suits. Their dress was no indication of how well they did the job, quite the reverse.
Who said it did? And the idea that punks and people with dreadlocks teach better than those in twinsets and sensible shoes is ludicrous and reductive. Some will be better teachers and others will be worse. 'Alternative' automatically = "better" sounds like something a fifth former would say.